Friday, August 18, 2017

CfP. Corporate responsibility: In the dilemma between trust and fake?

Call for Papers: Corporate responsibility: In the dilemma between trust and fake?

Guest Editors:
  • Simon Fietze, University of Southern Denmark
  • Wenzel Matiaske, Helmut-Schmidt-University/University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg (Germany)
  • Roland Menges, Technical University Clausthal (Germany)

Special Issue
Trust is the currency that creates markets. This is knowledge of the merchants at the latest since modern markets have emerged along the medieval trade routes. Quality and reliability in the business are also building blocks of trust and the assumption of responsibility for the social and ecological consequences of entrepreneurial activity. Whether the latter should be integrated into social and legal relations and norms in the form of voluntary corporate responsibility, has been the subject of economic discussion since the beginnings of the discipline and since the separation of the spheres of economic and moral action in the Scottish moral economy.

Over the past decades, both supra-national organisations such as the UN and the EU have been focusing on soft law – from the global compact through the AA1000 to the Green Paper of the EU Commission – as well as the national states, to promote social and environmental responsibility for companies in the age of globalisation. These initiatives have led to lively activities and debates both in the business world and in different scientific disciplines. For companies, it has now become a “fashion” to campaign social and ecological responsibility using the concept of “Corporate Social Responsibility”. This commitment has meanwhile led to the fact that CSR activities should partly contribute to value creation instead of aligning them with corporate objectives and values. Such a development leads to the loss of trust and the assumption of responsibility becomes a “fake”.

Against this backdrop, some of the social and economic observers remained sceptical, advocating tougher legal norms or fiscal implications. Finally, lawyers pointed out that (successful) standardisations often develop not only from the "top" but also from the “bottom”, i.e. they emerge from the action routines of the economic actors as emergent effects. However, not only the recent scandals – from the ENRON case to the VW case – raise questions about the effectiveness of co-operative self-commitment as well as external control.

Moreover, corporate responsibility is related to the concept of consumer responsibility. Whereas market-optimists believe that reliable changes in consumption patterns rely on responsible individual action, more market-skeptics warn of a counterproductive “privatisation of sustainability”.

In this light, this special issue will be on theoretical and empirical contributions to the topic “Corporate responsibility: In the dilemma between trust and fake?” from economic, sociological, (economic) historical and legal perspectives. Possible topics are:

Economic and history of ideas cases and questions of corporate responsibility
  • The “pseudo” corporate responsibility 
  • Organisational and sociological theories and findings on corporate responsibility
  • Theory and empiricism of the audit 
  • Theoretical and empirical studies on consumer responsibility 
  • Criminal law considerations for corporate actors 
  • Institutional factors of corporate responsibility 
  • The trust of social entrepreneurship 
  • This is not an exhaustive list. 

Deadline

Full paper for this special issue of Management Revue must be submitted by September 30th, 2017. All contributions will be subject to a double-blind review. Papers invited to a ‘revise and resubmit’ are due January 31st, 2018. Please submit your papers electronically via the online submission system using ‘SI Corporate Responsibility’ as article section.

Hoping to hear from you!
Simon Fietze
Wenzel Matiaske
Roland Menges

CfP. Strategies in the Global Digital Economy

Strategies in the Global Digital Economy

Call for papers for a Special Issue of 

Global Strategy Journal 

Deadline for submissions: April 15-30, 2018

Special Issue Editors:
  • Erkko Autio, Imperial College Business School
  • Ram Mudambi, Fox School of Business, Temple University
  • Youngjin Yoo, Weatherhead School of Business, Case Western Reserve University 

Objective of this Special Issue:

Spatial transaction costs – the costs of undertaking business transactions across geographic space – have been declining continuously since the beginning of the industrial revolution. However, with the digital transformation of society, these declines have become exponential. Since the introduction of the integrated circuit in 1958, Moore’s Law has consistently held, with speed and processing power doubling roughly every 18 months (Moore, 1965).1 According to Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014), the point of inflection associated with Moore’s Law dynamics was reached about 2006. They argue that the enormous and accelerating increases in digital capabilities since that time have changed the global business landscape in fundamental ways. They have enabled the flowering of a wide range of entirely new industries from social networking to online entertainment, as well as the re-launching of many traditional industries from taxicabs to lodging as platform businesses. 
Digitalization is transforming how firms organize for value creation and delivery (Tilson, Lyytinen, & Sorensen, 2010; Yoo, Boland Jr, Lyytinen, & Majchrzak, 2012). Underpinning this transformation is the constantly increasing sophistication and ubiquitous availability of digital infrastructures, which enable ever more sophisticated interactions between transacting parties regardless of geographic location. As services and interactions are increasingly digitalized and modularized (McDermott, Mudambi & Parente, 2013), and as digitalization increasingly permeates even physical products, enabling the connectivity of these to digital platforms, new business models are enabled that have the potential to scale globally – and to disrupt established incumbents. The car sharing company Uber and the home sharing firm Airbnb are just two well-known examples of the resulting globally disruptive business models that have transformed previously highly local service sectors. 
The global reach and disruptive potential of digitally enabled business model innovation creates a distinct challenge for global strategy research. Although the more disruptive wave of digitally enabled business models started already in the mid-2000s, global strategy and While many experts believe that the continual shrinking of transistors is reaching physical limits (e.g., Simonite, 2016), other technologies are appearing to maintain the general speed and processing power gains at the rate predicted by Moore’s Law.
international business research have been slow to address this phenomenon, in spite of increasing anecdotal evidence that the digitalization phenomenon is directly challenging and even undermining received theories of the internationalization of firms. When ubiquitous digital platforms enable direct and immediate interactions between users and producers located in different sides of the planet, what are the implications of this for the internationalization process theory and to the importance of foreign market knowledge? When firms can deliver services from distance, without necessarily locating any physical resources in the country where the service is offered, what are the implications of this for network models of internationalization? When a globally transacting business can be coordinated and managed from a single location, what are the implications of this for the very meaning of internationalization and globalization?

Although many digital business models are inherently international, global strategy and internationalization research have been relatively slow to address this phenomenon. While there have been numerous, often case-based studies focusing on ‘internet businesses’ and ‘e- business’, and systematic accounts of how digitalization challenges received internationalization theories have been few.

This special issue seeks to address both theoretical and empirical implications of digitalization for global strategies and internationalization. These are a few topics and research questions that papers submitted to the special issue can address: 
  • Digitalisation is transforming the patterns and sometimes the very meaning of the internationalization of firms (new ventures)
In particular, disintermediation (the ability of service and resource providers to directly engage and interact with end users virtually regardless of geographic distance) is enabling productive cross-border interactions in ways mostly unanticipated in received theories of the internationalization of firms.
  • The breadth and immediacy of one-to-one cross-border interactions is opening up new ways of creating, delivering, and appropriating value, driving a wave of international business model innovation.
  • The emergence of global digital platforms is enabling value creation and capture on a global scale, sometimes even global market dominance by a single firm 
  • Digitalisation is also enabling hitherto unseen opportunities to scale up business models in a global scale
  • Digitalization creates unforeseen interactions between local and global competitions, some of which are caused by the mobilization of local physical assets via global digital infrastructure 
  • Digitalization and global scalability of business models. On the one hand, digitalization tends to reduce dependency on location-specific assets thanks to, e.g., easily accessible and scalable cloud services that can be tapped in case of rapid growth. On the other hand, new barriers to scalability may arise, in the form of, e.g., regulatory barriers or gaps. When can digitalisation eliminate access to local resources as a constraint to internationalization, and what are the new barriers to foreign market entry? 
  • Implications of digitalization for the internationalization process. How does digitalization impact, e.g., entry mode choice, foreign market learning, liabilities of foreignness and outsidership, and the feasibility of gradual and ‘born global’ modes of internationalization?
  • Digitalisation and global value co-creation. How do the characteristics of digitalization, such as disintermediation and generativity shape and extend opportunities for value co-creation over national borders? 
  • Digitalisation, value bundling, and cross-border value co-creation. As digitalization enables novel ways of functionality bundling around digital platforms unconstrained by geographical location, what are the implications for cross-border value co- creation? 
  • Digitalization, disintermediation, and cross-border business model innovation. As disintermediation enables direct and virtually immediate contact with end users regardless of location, this should enable international new ventures to implement ‘lean entrepreneurship’ practices such as business model experimentation in cross- border settings. How can cross-border experimentation be harnessed for the discovery of robust and globally scalable business models? 
  • Digitalization, asset specificity, and the transformation of foreign market entry modes. As digitalization reduces asset specificity, it also should reduce dependency on local resources for value delivery and capture in a given country market. How will foreign market entry mode choice be affected by this development? 
  • Digitization in the production of tangible products, especially the effects of technologies like 3D printing, robotics and artificial intelligence on the location dimension of international business. 

Submission Process:

Between April 15 and 30, 2018, authors should submit their manuscripts online via the Global Strategy Journal submission system: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gsj. To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select “Digital Economy special issue” in the submission process

Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with Global Strategy Journal Guide for Authors available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2042- 5805/homepage/ForAuthors.html. All submitted manuscripts will be subject to the Journal’s double-blind review process.

Authors who have any questions may direct them to the Special Issue Editors by email: Erkko Autio (erkko.autio@imperial.ac.uk), Ram Mudambi (ram.mudambi@temple.edu) and Youngjin Yoo (youngjin@case.edu).

References:


Brynjolfsson E. and McAfee, A. 2014. The Second Machine Age: Work, Progess and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. W.W.Norton, New York.

McDermott, G., Mudambi, R., & Parente, R. 2013. Strategic modularity and the architecture of the multinational firm. Global Strategy Journal, 3(1): 1-7.

Moore, G. 1965. Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics, 38(8), April 19.
Simonite, T. 2016. Moore’s Law is dead. Now what? MIT Technology Review, May 13.
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sorensen, C. 2010. Desperately Seeking the Infrastructure in IS Research:

Conceptualization of "Digital Convergence" As Co-Evolution of Social and Technical Infrastructures.

Paper presented at the System Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on.
Yoo, Y., Boland Jr, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. 2012. Organizing for innovation in the digitized world.

Organization Science, 23(5): 1398-1408.

____

CfP. International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems. Innovation in Latin America

International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems

Call for Papers for Special Issue on: “Innovation in Latin America”


Guest Editors

  • Prof. Jerry Haar, Florida International University, USA
  • Prof. Robert E. Grosse, Thunderbird School of Global Management, USA 

The aim of this special issue is to attract research that addresses and discusses the emergence, status and outlook for innovation in Latin America embodied in its many aspects and dimensions. The transformational (and disruptive) prowess of globalisation continues to impact nearly every nation on the globe. Industrialised and developing countries in every region are experiencing its effects economically, socially, and politically. While both the public and private sectors have, indeed, allocated greater resources to boost growth (and profitability), in manufacturing, services, and natural resources, sustaining competitive levels of performance is more and more difficult. The recognised solution for countries, industries, and firms is to innovate.

Innovation is impacting every region and functional dimension of the global economy. It is an essential driver of economic productivity, social progress, and ultimately human achievement. Innovation is inextricably tied to success and profit, whether the enterprise is a technological giant like Microsoft or Siemens; a natural resources firm like CVRD or BHP Billiton; a conglomerate like Samsung or GE; or a small or medium-sized global enterprise. 
With reference to Latin America, it is the second most entrepreneurial region in the world, according to the World Bank. Its Internet and mobile density are higher than the world average, and the accelerated pace of start-ups - both tech and non-tech based - has been occurring irrespective of economic and political ups and downs in the region. Last year, start-ups in Latin American ballooned to 1,333 and accelerators to 62, with investment approaching $32 million. 
Within this context the ecosystem of innovation in Latin America is built upon the interrelationship between three drivers: national policy (although subnational policies are important, as well), facilitating institutions (e.g. science parks, R&D labs, accelerators, incubators), and firm-level innovation. Each continues to shape the competitiveness of countries and regions in the hemisphere, as well. 
There is a real challenge to innovation in Latin America in that the level of R&D activity is far below that in the Triad countries (US, Japan, and EU), as well as far below that in Eastern Europe and developing Asia. It would be useful to see some discussion of how Latin American companies and governments can stimulate more R&D – as well as pursuing even greater innovation in business models and practices, as evidenced by the high level of entrepreneurship noted above.

Subject Coverage

Topics 

include, but are not limited to, the following:
  • Innovation in the structure, organisation and management of the firm 
  • Product, process, service and business model innovation 
  • Macro-level economic and regulatory policies that impact innovativeness 
  • New thinking on innovation in the services sector 
  • Innovation in HR policies and practices 
  • Open Innovation 
  • Innovation in export-oriented small and medium size firms 
  • How do we measure innovation? 

Notes for Prospective Authors


Submitted papers should not have been previously published nor be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. (N.B. Conference papers may only be submitted if the paper has been completely re-written and if appropriate written permissions have been obtained from any copyright holders of the original paper).

All papers are refereed through a peer review process.
All papers must be submitted online. Please read our Submitting articles page.

If you have any queries concerning this special issue, please email the Guest Editors Prof. Jerry Haar at haarj@fiu.edu and Prof. Robert E. Grosse at grosser@global.t-bird.edu  .

Important Dates

  • Submission of manuscripts: 31 December, 2017 
  • Notification to authors: 15 March, 2018
  • Final versions due: 15 May, 2018

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

CfP: Global Strategy in the Age of Skepticism of Globalization

Global Strategy in the Age of Skepticism of Globalization


Call for papers for a Special Issue of 

Global Strategy Journal

Submission period: December 1-15, 2017

Special Issue Editors:

  • Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Northeastern University 
  • Yves Doz, INSEAD 
  • Ajai Gaur, Rutgers University 

The Objective of this Special Issue:

Globalization, the increasing connection and integration of economies and societies around the world, has seen ebbs and flows during history. In recent times, we witnessed an increase in globalization, thanks to the twin engines of technological advances and economic liberalization. Technological advances in transportation, such as containerization and cargo jets, and in communication technologies, such as computers and the internet, have facilitated the interaction and coordination of activities across national borders, the growth of global value chains and suppliers’ networks, and the reduction of the costs of operating at a distance. Economic liberalization with reductions in governmental and institutional barriers to the free movement of capital, ideas and people across national borders, pro-market reforms, the integration of transition economies and the expansion of free trade agreements, enabled the growth of international trade and the expansion of global firms. The result of these processes has been an increasing interest in international business and advances in the theory of the multinational firm and of global ecosystems, as activities that previously were done within national borders have spread across countries.
However, globalization has brought not only benefits but also costs. On the one hand, there are numerous benefits in the form of lower-cost products and services as a result of the gains from comparative advantage and specialization, and more innovative products and services as a result of global learning and the rapid spread of innovations and technologies across borders. On the other hand, there are also costs in the form of increased competition on domestic companies and workers, who previously were shielded by barriers against foreign products and companies, and in the form of new technologies that have altered traditional careers and expectations regarding relationships between workers, citizens, and firms. Many perceive globalization as a threat to wellbeing. 
Even if some Luddites want to block technological progress, technological advances are difficult to constrain given the ease of the diffusion of technologies, especially nowadays as information is easily accessible thanks to the internet. However, the same cannot be said of economic liberalization and the reduction of barriers to trade and increased economic integration. Those who have been harmed or felt harmed because of globalization, and the labor costs arbitrage it enabled, can place pressure on governments to limit exposure to foreign companies, workers, and investments. Some governments have responded to these pressures by reintroducing tight constraints on the activities of foreign firms and the free movement of capital and labor across borders. What initially were fringe movements of skeptics of globalization that emerged vocally at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s, have become influential movements and political parties that have altered government policy in the 2010s. Some examples are the decision of Britain in 2016 to leave the European Union or the decision of the US government in 2017 not to join the 12-country Transpacific Partnership free trade agreement. However, the debate has become complicated. It seems to have moved away from the polar views of being for or against globalization, and has become more nuanced with arguments on the particular terms of globalization for the country and individuals, including new considerations such as environmental protection, transport costs, climate change, and labor rights. Additionally, there are new conflicting views regarding globalization, with some being in favor of bilateral and regional integration while being against multilateral and global integration, and others promoting the opposite view. 
This skepticism of globalization presents interesting challenges to our current understanding of international business and more broadly to the theory of the multinational organization. Skepticism creates a new source of uncertainty not only from the government but also from citizens on the ability of multinationals to operate across countries and be accepted in host countries as well as at home. Managers of multinationals are facing a questioning of the activities of their companies in the countries in which they operate, and a need to justify the benefits that their companies bring to each country; previously, such justification could be assumed to exist in the form of better products for consumers and employment for local workers. Moreover, this skepticism creates uncertainty not only by the imposition of new constraints on the activities of the firm, but also over the interpretation and application of current rules. Thus, managers of multinationals are now facing new scrutiny over their ability to close down existing operations and move activities to new locations, as some foreign firms experienced in India; to acquire domestic companies, as many Chinese companies have experienced in the US; or in more extreme cases, the nationalization of their subsidiaries, as happened in Argentina and Venezuela. 
Hence, in this special issue of Global Strategy Journal, we want to gain a better understanding of how the skepticism of globalization is altering the way in which we should think about the behavior of multinational firms and the theory of the multinational. Skepticism towards globalization alters decision-making in multinationals as it establishes new constraints on the operations of firms and introduces uncertainty regarding the future viability of investments and activities. Researchers need to understand the extent to which choices now made by managers in global companies and in their networks of suppliers, customers and partners reflect these new constraints and uncertainties. Skepticism towards globalization also changes the relationship between the multinational firms and the broader society, in which managers have to deal with interest groups, and a more generally diffused dislike and suspicion toward multinationals and their operations, both abroad and at home, forcing them to rethink their market and nonmarket strategies.
We are looking for papers that provide a deeper and more nuanced comprehension of the theoretical mechanisms that underpin the theory of the multinational and the relationship between multinational firms and their context under the influence of skepticism and rising uncertainty and ambiguity about globalization. We consider multinationals in a loose sense to include not only corporations that control operations in multiple countries, but also companies that rely on global supply networks or serve a global portfolio of customers without controlling operations abroad, as well as not-for-profit organizations that operate in multiple countries. We welcome theoretical papers that outline how we should think about the multinational firm in the new context of skepticism, large sample empirical studies that test theory-driven arguments of the relationship between skepticism of globalization and firm behavior, or case studies that identify new concepts and relationships underpinning changes in the context of operation and behavior of a firm driven by skepticism of globalization. We particularly welcome studies that outline bridges to disciplines outside the traditional economic basis of global strategy studies such as legal studies, political economy, institutional theory, organizational theory, sociology, psychology, or history.

The following are some of the questions that studies analyzing the relationship between skepticism of globalization and global strategy might analyze. This list is only presented as an illustration of topics rather than an outline of the boundaries of the special issue:
  • 1. How do we understand globalization, its dimensions and their impact on firms? How do regional versus global relationships play a role in this debate? 
  • 2. How do changes for and against globalization among various constituencies alter the assumptions and predictions of theories of the multinational? What is the role of the broader context of the firm on the theory of strategic management? 
  • 3. How do pro-market reversals and economic nationalisms change the predictions of studies on premarket reforms and economic liberalization? How do different types of companies by ownership (private, state, family, diffused, groups) react to skepticism of globalization? Do we see the return of “multi-domestic” MNCs? 
  • 4. How do local competitors take advantage of this growing skepticism and the threat to continued globalization it portends? 
  • 5. What are the consequences of this skepticism on increasing complex global supply chains, and on local firms that are partners in such supply chain networks? 
  • 6. How do new constraints on the operations of firms alter their strategies? What type of reorganization of activities within the multinationals, their networks of suppliers, customers and partners, and across countries are most appropriate for these constraints? 
  • 7. What strategies can managers of global firms deploy to face the increased skepticism of globalization? What are the most appropriate market and non-market strategies that manager can implement to deal with new governmental constraints or new customer and citizens demands? 
  • 8. How can managers influence the processes of skepticism and counter changing attitudes of government officials, workers, and citizens? 
  • 9. How do historical changes in favor of and against globalization help us better understand the strategies that managers can implement to deal with current events? How do attitudes differ across locations and time and what are the lessons that can be learned when establishing strategies? 
  • 10. How do differences in the demographic, economic, political, and social situations and relationships among countries explain the attitudes toward globalization and their impacts on firms? 
  • 11. How do for-profit and non-for-profit organizations are affected and react to skepticism of globalization? What are the differences in their strategies? 
  • 12. What are the underlying assumptions on the relationships between organizations and their context in current models of firms and multinationals and how are these challenges with the attitudes of government officials and citizens? How can these be reconciled? 
  • 13. How do changes in laws and their implementation alter contracts and transaction costs and how can companies devise strategies to addresses these legal changes? 
Authors working on submissions to the special issue are welcome to contact the guest editors if they have doubts about the appropriateness of the topic they want to analyze in regards to the theme of the special issue. 

Submission Process:

Between December 1 and 15, 2017, authors should submit their manuscripts online via the Global Strategy Journal submission system: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gsj. To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, please click the “Special Issue Article” when selecting the “Article Type” step in the submission process

Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Global Strategy Journal Guide for Authors available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2042-5805/homepage/ForAuthors.html

All submitted manuscripts will be subject to the journal’s double-blind review process.

We may organize a workshop designed to facilitate the development of papers in 2018. Authors of manuscripts that have progressed through the revision process will be invited to it. Presentation of their work at the workshop is neither a requirement for nor a promise of final acceptance of the paper in the Special Issue. 

If you have questions about the Special Issue, please direct them to the three guest editors: Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Northeastern University (a.cuervocazurra@neu.edu), Yves Doz, INSEAD (yves.doz@insead.edu), and Ajai Gaur, Rutgers University (ajai@business.rutgers.edu).

Monday, May 8, 2017

Call for papers. Special Issue: Renewable Energy in International Business

Special Issue – critical perspectives on international business 


“Renewable Energy in International Business”


Guest Editors

  • Valtteri Kaartemo, University of Turku, Finland; Masar B.V., the Netherlands
  • Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez, Universidad EAFIT, Colombia

Introduction to the Special Issue


Renewable energy sources are continually restored by nature and derived directly (e.g., thermal and photovoltaics) or indirectly (e.g., wind and hydro) from the sun, or from other natural mechanisms of the environment (e.g., geothermal and tidal energy). Renewable energy excludes resources derived from fossil fuels, waste products from fossil sources, and waste products from inorganic sources (Ellabban et al., 2014). As a result, renewable energy is to a large extent climate neutral and resource saving.

In 2016, around 300 billion US dollars were invested in renewable energy worldwide (Bloomberg, 2017). Major multinational enterprises (MNEs) have announced their transition towards renewable energy sources (Hardy, 2016). Renewable energy has the potential to be a fascinating topic to study for international business (IB) scholars. Most of the production, particularly solar photovoltaics, is highly scalable and currently concentrated in China (Kaartemo, 2016). However, resources and demand for renewable energy investments are global. Moreover, renewables are highly influenced by international institutions (e.g. the Paris Climate Change Agreement was signed by 194 nations in 2015). Yet, these agreements have to be locally implemented, and countries have different capacities and institutional regulatory environments for attracting (and sometimes distracting) renewable energy investments, and to drive environmental innovations (Gonzalez-Perez, 2016).

Despite the need for understanding renewable energy business as a complex global phenomenon, there is a general lack of research in addressing environmental challenges from an IB perspective. The extant research on renewable energy markets is mostly studied within country boundaries, without interest in studying the cross-border dynamics. These studies focus on the development of current status, public policies and future potential of individual countries. Only few studies have been published on how IB practices or countries’ cross-border institutional development and geopolitics influence the investments, competitiveness, and MNE interaction in the era of ‘energy transition’ (Kolk, 2015, 2016).

This is unfortunate. Studies on renewable energy can open up new perspectives to how international opportunities are discovered and created (Mainela et al., 2014). In addition, as renewable energy attracts impact investors (Bugg-Levine and Emerson, 2011), financiers who make investments with the intention to generate social or environmental impact alongside a financial return, studies in renewable energy may challenge the current monetary oriented focus in international finance research (Ockenden and Ye Zou, 2016). Furthermore, being heavily influenced by national decision-making and local stakeholders, studies on renewable energy can critically depict institutional work – how institutions are created, maintained, and disrupted (Lawrence et al., 2011), and how international markets are created. Instead of focusing primarily on local transformations, IB research could provide new insights on the global developments of renewable energy markets. Finally, the linkage between renewable energy and IB scholarship can further advance our understanding of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the thematic area of renewable energy, itself.

Conceptual and Empirical Topics of Particular Interest


For this special issue, we seek conceptual, theoretical and empirical work that debates issues linking renewable energy research and IB research. We encourage scholars to utilise different theoretical perspectives and apply a wide variety of rigorous methodological approaches. We are looking for studies identifying and examining common issues in renewable energy across countries as well as highlighting industry and country-specific issues. Manuscripts may also cover wider perspectives as long as the papers are in line with the broad theme of the special issue.

Guiding questions may include, but are not restricted to:


  • What is the role of national and international institutions in the creation and shaping of renewable energy markets?
  • How do differences in institutional environments enable or constrain the development of indigenous renewable energy markets?
  • How do relevant international networks differ from one form of renewable energy to another?
  • How effective has been the activism of the global civil society and international non-governmental organisations to promote a critical view on man-made climate change?
  • What is the importance of local networks in deploying renewable energy in an MNE’s target market?
  • How does positive news around adopting of renewable energy influence CSR and corporate sustainability practices internationally?
  • How does corporate sustainability and CSR influence adoption of renewable energy in different target markets?
  • How can research on international entrepreneurship advance insight on renewable energy adoption?
  • Which incentives need to be put in place for renewable energy adopting in new international ventures? 
  • What are the investment criteria of international renewable energy financiers?
  • What is the role of target country image in attracting funding for renewable energy projects?
  • What are the dark sides of international renewable energy?
  • What are the local environmental and societal consequences of the excessive use of land by renewable energy MNEs?
  • To what extent is renewable energy a solution also for developing countries as well as the global poor? 
Following the aim and mission of critical perspectives on international business (cpoib) (Roberts and Dörrenbächer, 2016), submissions must promote dialogue and new thinking in the broad field of IB. Potential contributors are encouraged to creatively and critically question the hegemony of transnational corporations, managerial orthodoxy and the dominant academic discourse.

The special issue is open to various formats and styles of presentation. We encourage potential contributors to review previous issues of cpoib to see the breadth of perspectives and contributions.

Submission Process and Deadlines

Guidelines for submission

  • Authors should refer to the cpoib website and the instructions on submitting a paper. For author guidelines and more information see: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/cpoib.htm
  • Submissions to cpoib are made using ScholarOne Manuscripts http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cpoib  
  • All papers will be subjected to double-blind peer review and papers will be reviewed in accordance with cpoib guidelines. 

The guest editors welcome informal enquiries related to proposed topics.

  • Submission deadline: 28 February 2018 

  • Approximate date of publication: Issue 1, 2019


Guest Editors’ Contact Details:

Dr. Valtteri Kaartemo 
University Teacher
University of Turku, Finland
valtteri.kaartemo@utu.fi
https://www.utu.fi/en/units/tse/units/international_business/contact/Pages/Valtteri-Kaartemo.aspx
Head of Research
Masar B.V., the Netherlands
valtteri@masar.io
www.masar.io


Prof. Dr. Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez
Vice-President of the Academy of International Business (2015-2018)
Full Professor of Management
Universidad EAFIT, Colombia
mgonza40@eafit.edu.co
http://www.eafit.edu.co/docentes-investigadores/Paginas/maria-gonzalez.aspx

References


  • Bugg-Levine, A. and Emerson, J. (2011), “Impact Investing: Transforming How We Make Money while Making a Difference”, Innovations, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 9–18. 
  • Bloomberg (2017) “Clean Energy Investment End of Year 2016”. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, available at: https://about.bnef.com/clean-energy-investment/
  • Ellabban, O., Abu-rub, H. and Blaabjerg, F. (2014), “Renewable energy resources : Current status , future prospects and their enabling technology”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 39, pp. 748–764. 
  • Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. (2016), “Climate change and the 2030 corporate agenda for sustainable development”, Advances in Sustainability and Environmental Justice, Vol. 19, pp. 1–6. 
  • Hardy, Q. (2016), “Google Says It Will Run Entirely on Renewable Energy in 2017”, The New York Times, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/technology/google-says-it-will-run-entirely-on-renewable-energy-in-2017.html?_r=0
  • Kaartemo, V. (2016), “Creation and shapping of the global solar photovoltaic (PV) market”, Advances in Sustainability and Environmental Justice, Vol. 19, pp. 229–250. 
  • Kolk, A. (2015), “The role of international business in clean technology transfer and development”, Climate Policy, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 170–176. 
  • Kolk, A. (2016), “The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 23–34. 
  • Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R. and Leca, B. (2011), “Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Organization”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 52–58. 
  • Mainela, T., Puhakka, V. and Servais, P. (2014), “The Concept of International Opportunity in International Entrepreneurship: A Review and a Research Agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 105–129. 
  • Ockenden, S. and Ye Zou, S. (2016), What Enables Effective International Climate Finance in the Context of Development Co-Operation?, OECD Publishing, Paris. 
  • Roberts, J. and Dörrenbächer, C. (2016), “Renewing the call for critical perspectives on international business”, Critical Perspectives on International Business, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 2–21.

Friday, March 17, 2017

CfP: Strategy, Innovation, and New Ventures in the New Normal Global Business Landscape

Journal of Management Studies

Special Issue Call for Papers:

Strategy, Innovation, and New Ventures  in the New Normal Global Business Landscape

Submission Deadline: 15 December 2017

Guest Editors:


JMS Editor:
  • Dries Faems, University of Groningen, Dept. of Innovation Management & Strategy (d.l.m.faems@rug.nl)

Overview


At the end of the 1990s, Hitt and colleagues (Hitt, Keats & DeMarie, 1998) introduced the notion of the new competitive landscape to describe the emergence of a changing business environment. That newer environment was characterized by more turbulent and technology-intensive conditions where some firms (and countries) grew at almost unheard of rates and new competitors could appear unexpectedly, assisted by new technologies as well as the increased globalization that facilitated market entry, cost arbitrage, and scale. However, the current competitive landscape is shifting once again. Since the worldwide financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath, coupled with simmering populist concerns, we are seeing emergence of a new business landscape changing the environment for firms once again – i.e. a New Normal whereby something that was previously unusual has started to become more commonplace (El-Erian, 2010; Hitt, Li, & Xu, 2016). In a 2010 talk titled Navigating the New Normal in Industrial Countries, the head of PIMCO, Mohamed A. El-Erian stated: “Our use of the term was an attempt to move the discussion beyond the notion that the [financial] crisis was a mere flesh wound...instead the crisis cut to the bone. It was the inevitable result of an extraordinary, multiyear period which was anything but normal." International Monetary Fund Director, Christine Lagarde, added in October 2014 that the advanced economies may be facing a “new mediocre,” while former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Lawrence Summers, foresaw an era of “secular stagnation.”

The New Normal

It has become increasingly clear that a restructuring of the economic order has been taking place, and has particularly affected multinational enterprises (MNEs), and others doing business across borders. After the 2008 crisis for example, capital flows between countries and trade in goods and services have retreated significantly to levels not seen in a quarter century (Sharma, 2016: 2). Foreign direct investment has fallen from its pre-crisis high of over $3 trillion to around $2 trillion in 2015 (The World Bank, 2017). The more developed economies could linger in a low-level growth equilibrium for an unusually prolonged period (El-Erian, 2016). High debts caused in part by heavy reliance on accommodating monetary policy, may be prolonging that equilibrium. This may also mean costlier capital, an expanded role for governments, and a much larger burden of regulation and taxation for all, as firms find it more difficult to shift activities and park funds in the most favorable locations.

Before the financial crash, many companies had moved or were moving toward globally integrated structures, many encompassing hundreds of locations for various corporate activities. But the notion that we live in a world where the constituent parts of enterprises can be unbundled and distributed almost anywhere at will has been challenged by economic volatility, and changing political sentiments regarding borders, trade, and disruptive new (often local) competitors. The related inattention to the negative labor market and legitimacy consequences of trade and globalization may have further helped to energize populists opposition and the issues for multinational enterprises. At the same time, labor markets have become less dynamic and flexible, contributing to increasing inequality, which itself is hurting economic growth and increasing resentment toward wealthier individuals and firms, and the free trade they encourage (Autor, Dorn, and Hanson, 2016). This labor inflexibility is also seen in projections forecasting shortfalls in the global supply of many categories of engineers and other technical personnel.

The New Normal economy thus challenges how businesses are organized and governed, and even raises concerns with respect to their position in previously difficult-to-contest markets based on scale and scope economies and other thought-to-be strong barriers to competition (Davis, 2016). Global firms and entrepreneurs alike must account for these developments in terms of their plans and strategies in the coming years. Thus, the purpose of this Special Issue (SI) is to explore and explain the ways in which the New Normal affects strategies, innovation, and new venture activity. 

Core Goals of the Special Issue

  • First, this SI seeks a clearer conceptualization of the New Normal. Which major economic and commercial changes have occurred and are occurring during this time? How do these changes influence different environmental conditions related to economic growth, industrial environments, commercial practices, and important formal and informal institutions?
  • Second, this SI also seeks to increase our understanding of how the New Normal conditions impact key actors at various levels such as MNEs, suppliers, entrepreneurs, investors, and customers. We hope to refine our understanding of the contexts wherein the New Normal is most likely to have its greatest impact.
  • Third, this SI hopes to provide a better understanding of how the New Normal conditions unfolding in different domains and different locations may have impact across different actors and ecosystems. Our SI will also seek manuscripts that address big research questions across levels of analysis and create foundational knowledge on a range of topics that addresses the strategic, operational, governance, institutional and performance consequences of the New Normal environment. Contributors are encouraged to provide not only quantitative or qualitative empirical evidence, but also new theory and concepts that can help to explain how some firms are able to adapt to and profit from the New Normal environment.

Possible topics

There are a number of topics/issues that can be addressed in the SI. In particular, it seeks to examine firm strategies, innovation, cooperation, and new venture creation in this New Normal environment. Several possible topics for the SI are provided below, though they need not be limited to these.
  • I. Strategies

A. Global and Business Level

  1. Globalization in the New Normal: A positive or malevolent force? In many developed countries, optimistic and positive feelings about a “Global World” have been replaced by negative ones, blaming globalization and unrooted, widely distributed corporate structures for existing economic or societal problems. How have MNEs been dealing with these legitimacy concerns? Are they purely problems of perception and reputation, or can something else be done?
  2.  Entry-related issues in the New Normal: In recent years, lower-tech, less environmentally-friendly industries have been less desired by many host countries, while industries using high-tech and clean-energy are preferred. How have potential multinational entrants responded to these and other changes in industrial policies and how they should respond?
  3.  Exit-related issues in the New Normal: Given the increase in the cost of doing business in some formerly “hot” host countries such as China in which costs are rising, how will multinational firms design and implement retrenchment or exit strategies if it becomes necessary to back out of foreign investments? Will they return to their home countries?
  4.  Regional strategies in the New Normal: Companies whose strategies currently emphasize flexible supply chains, arbitraging costs, and achieving economies of scale across national boundaries may need to shift toward embeddedness, adapting to local conditions. Companies whose strategies emphasize arbitrage—taking advantage of differences—may need to make the same shift.
B. Strategies – Corporate (Mergers & Acquisitions, Strategic Alliances)

In the face of economic slowdown, overcapacity and low interest rates, there are numerous questions and issues related to use of corporate strategies in the new environment:
  1.  What types of M&A or alliances are most effective for a firm to deal with environmental challenges of the New Normal?
  2.  What potential difficulties/problems with the corporate strategies exist under the New Normal that may not have been problems before the changes of the past decade?
  3.  Will M&As enable firms to take advantage of environmental changes in the New Normal?
  4. Will M&As prompt domestic firms to increase the pace of international market expansion under the New Normal?
  5. What attitudes of governments towards M&As and particularly towards international M&As are likely to exist? Are they preventing or encouraging M&As under the New Normal?
  6. What strategies can firms best use to achieve their desired growth?

II. Innovation

  1. In the New Normal, economic weakness, extra capacity, and possibly a shift in the zeitgeist toward more frugality, may put downward pressure on prices. Expansion into poorer markets at home and abroad will intensify this trend. How should firms respond to this pressure (and opportunities)?
  2. Are more entrepreneurs and firms pursuing disruptive innovation in the New Normal and what are the outcomes of this innovation strategy?
  3. A sustainable competitive position is more difficult if a company is unable to innovate its business model. How do firms develop business model innovations in the New Normal?
  4. How does management innovation help firms design and implement organizational transformation in the New Normal?
  5. Why and how do firms conduct social innovations for a sustainable development in the New Normal? 
  6. Market-creating innovations use capital to scale up to a greater extent than more common incremental innovations to enhance efficiency. How can these crucial market-creating innovations be encouraged in the New Normal?

III. New ventures 
  1. Does the New Normal enhance or hinder entrepreneurial activity?
  2. What forms of new ventures may be required for the New Normal?
  3.  What are the mechanisms for firms to conduct new opportunity discovery, evaluation, and exploitation in the New Normal?
  4. How do new entrepreneurial firms adapt to changes such as low interest rates and trade barriers in the New Normal?
  5. In the New Normal, what strategies help new entrepreneurial firms to strengthen their competitiveness domestically and internationally?
  6.  The New Normal conditions also suggest that efficiency ratios such as ROI may not be as helpful for resource allocation decisions. What other measures are appropriate for managers and venture capitalists to use in making investment decisions?
  7.  How is economic growth proceeding in the New Normal compared to the past two decades? Are the most commonly publicized figures masking things of which management and IB researchers should be aware? 

Submission Process and Deadlines

  •  Submissions should be prepared using the JMS Manuscript Preparation Guidelines.
  • Manuscripts should be submitted by 23 December 2017 to Margaret Turner (business.jms@durham.ac.uk).
  • Manuscripts will be reviewed according to the JMS double-blind review process.
  • For informal inquires related to the Special Issue, proposed topics and potential fit with the Special Issue objectives, please contact the guest editors.


Special Issue Workshop:

 To help authors advance their manuscripts, a Special Issue Workshop may be held on or around 9 August 2018 (possibly immediately before the Academy of Management Annual Meeting in Chicago, USA). If there is a workshop, authors of R&R manuscripts will be invited to present and discuss their papers during the workshop. However, presentation at the workshop will not guarantee acceptance of a paper for publication in JMS. Also, attending the workshop will not be a precondition for acceptance of a paper for the Special Issue.



CfP. Challenges and opportunities in the sharing economy

Journal of Management Studies’ Special Issue Call for Papers:

Challenges and opportunities in the sharing economy

Submission Deadline: January 15, 2018

Guest Editors:

Overview

This special issue explores how, when, why, where and under what conditions an emerging form of collaborative consumption, popularly known as the “sharing economy” affects the creation and capture of value. The sharing economy (a.k.a. shareconomy, access, collaborative, and peer economy) refers to a class of economic arrangements in which asset owners and users mutualize access to the products or services associated with these assets (Lamberton & Rose, 2012; Sundararajan, 2016). Fueled in part by advances in information technology and excess resources, the sharing economy is now recognized as offering easy and broad connection with customers and suppliers. 

The emergence of collaborative consumption and the sharing economy has led to dramatic changes in the nature of competition between entrants and incumbents. For instance, the sharing economy has fostered the growth of many well-known startups, including accommodation companies (Airbnb), social media firms (Facebook), and financial firms (Lending Club) (Belk, 2014; Matzler et al., 2015). The valuation of Airbnb, a 7-year-old startup, is $30 billion, which is worth nearly $7 billion more than the 97 years old, publicly-traded Hilton Worldwide—the next most valuable hospitality company. Age and valuations aside, Airbnb boasts more than 2 million listings in more than 191 countries whereas the newly combined Marriott and Starwood offer ‘only’ 1.1 million rooms in 110 countries worldwide. Some estimate that the sharing economy is valued at $26 billion, with new services and multisided platforms emerging almost daily (Botsman, 2014; Botsman, & Roger, 2011). 

This Special Issue (SI) aims to explore and explain how, why and when the sharing economy affects consumers, business competition, and regulators. The SI also aim to shed light on how the sharing economy addresses problems of profit making, trust building, and market legitimacy in both B2B and B2C markets. In the sharing economy, the roles of suppliers, buyers, and users tend to blur and overlap as parties build platforms to share their resources (Belk, 2014; Williamson & De Meyer, 2012). Academic research, however, has yet to explain, especially theoretically how multisided platforms overcome these challenge while increasing asset accessibility and maximize the value of resources. As the sharing economy challenges how businesses are organized and governed, it creates opportunities for scholars to assess management theories, labor laws, practices and the nature of for profit and nonprofit enterprises (Davis, 2016).

What the Special Issue (SI) Hopes to Accomplish

First, this SI seeks to offer a clear conceptualization of the sharing economy. By identifying and categorizing the critical actors—the suppliers, platform providers, social entrepreneurs, and users associated with the sharing economy, as well as regulatory institutions—we hope to refine our understanding of the contexts wherein the sharing economy is most likely to have its greatest impact.


Second, this SI seeks to better understand how the sharing economy coordinates action across these diverse actors and even ecosystems.  Our SI will favor manuscripts that, individually and collectively, address big research questions and create foundational knowledge that addresses the logistical, operational, governance and performance consequences of the sharing economy for new entrants and incumbents alike.  Such work may explore, for instance, whether existing conceptualizations of platform competition are precise enough to explain how traditional incumbents should react to sharing-economy entrants.  

Third, our experience shows that studies on emerging phenomena tend to homogenize; they usually follow similar empirical methodologies, converge around a dominant conceptual lens, and tackle similar research questions.  The risks associated with such “convergence” is potentially overemphasizing branded players (e.g. Airbnb, Craig’s List, etc.), while underspecifying processes (e.g. how, when and where players inside and outside the sharing economy collaborate and compete).  Our SI favors attention to processes, especially the underlying mechanism in both developed and developing worlds.  

Given the multi-disciplinary and multi-level nature of the sharing economy, we encourage conceptual and empirical studies using a variety of methods (qualitative and quantitative).  Our SI will also differentiate other special issues on this topic (e.g., AMD, which focuses on empirical research and MIS Quarterly, which focuses on information technology)  

Submission Process and Deadlines

*  Manuscripts will be reviewed according to the JMS double-blind review process.
*  Submissions should be prepared using the JMS Manuscript Preparation Guidelines.
* Manuscripts should be submitted by January 15, 2018 to Margaret Turner (business.jms@durham.ac.uk).
*  For informal inquires related to the Special Issue, proposed topics and potential fit with the Special Issue objectives, please contact the guest editors.


Special Issue Workshop: To help authors advance their manuscripts, a Special Issue Workshop will be held in May 2018 (location to be announced). Authors of R&R manuscripts will be invited to present and discuss their papers during the workshop, but presentation at the workshop does not guarantee acceptance of a paper for publication in JMS. Attending the workshop is not a precondition for acceptance into the Special Issue.

References:
Davis, G. F. 2016. The vanishing American corporation: Navigating the hazards of a new economy. Ann Arbor, MI: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 
Matzler, K., Veider, V., and Kathan, W. 2015. Adapting to the sharing economy. MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 71-77.
Sundararajan, A., 2016. The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism, MIT Press

Williamson, P.J., & De Meyer, A. 2012. Ecosystem advantage: How to successfully harness the power of partners. California Management Review, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 24-46.

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Special Issue of Transnational Corporations on the role of the Multinational Corporation in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

Special Issue of Transnational Corporations on the role of the Multinational Corporation in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

Transnational Corporations 


Special Issue on the role of the Multinational in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

Proposed Title: MNEs and the Sustainable Development Goals
Editors: John Dilyard, Ph.D. and Caroline Witte, Ph.D.

Dear Fellow Scholars and Researchers: 
 
The highly successful Town Hall meeting, ‘How the AIB Community Can Best Contribute to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals’, held at the 2016 AIB Annual Meeting in New Orleans generated several ideas for research on the link between the private sector, particularly multinational enterprises (MNEs), and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As a way to both highlight existing and encourage further work on this topic, we are proposing a special issue (and potentially a series of issues) of Transnational Corporations, UNCTAD’s policy-oriented journal on MNEs (TNCs), FDI and development. UNCTAD is one of the leading agencies supporting the implementation of the SDGs, and has a long-standing partnership with the AIB. The first special issue is planned for early 2017 to coincide with the 2017 AIB conference in Dubai and its theme “The Contribution of MNEs to Building Sustainable Societies”.

As was discussed in New Orleans, IB research is shifting increasingly toward the relationships between MNEs and developing countries, sustainability, socially responsible investment, socially responsible behavior and public policy. The scale, scope and ambition of the SDGs creates an opportunity for IB research to systematically analyze these relationships and to serve as an advocate for both the promotion of sustainable practices by MNEs and the design of policies to support them. And while there are many resources devoted to the private sector and sustainability, academic work specifically linking the private sector to the SDGs is sparse. Our proposed issue, therefore, helps fill a void. 
 
The Sustainable Development Goals can be found here. Further information on the related Financing for Development (FfD) and 2030 Action Agenda (for the SDGs) can be found at the webpage of the UN Inter-agency task force on Financing for Development. In addition, the Business for 2030 initiativeillustrates how the UN envisions private sector contributions to the SDGs. Work on the SDGs is also being done by the UN Global Compact (https://www.unglobalcompact.org/sdgs) and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development ([https://wbcsdpublications.org]https://wbcsdpublications.org). Examples of studies and resources can be found on the latter’s SDG Business Hub.

We are interested in contributions on relevant themes, perhaps linked to your existing work, on the role of the MNE in achieving the SDGs. While our focus is on developing countries, we recognize that the SDGs apply to all countries and that interesting work on how MNEs contribute to the implementation of SDGs in developed countries may exist. We are looking first for ‘op-ed’ and essay style contributions that are lightly referenced rather than heavy quantitative and/or theoretical analysis. The purpose here is to facilitate new, yet concrete, ideas that can generate ongoing research and policy discussions. Hence, we are interested in research agendas and perspectives in support of meeting specific SDGs (or targets within SDGs), but we also invite short empirical or theoretical papers for which the criteria for robustness, thoroughness or completeness are not as high as those for a typical journal submission. Because the SDGs involve many different scientific disciplines and are highly interconnected, we also encourage interdisciplinary efforts. The review process will include the editors of the issue, as well as editors of TransnationalCorporations. 

The following topics are meant to illustrate the range of possible submissions:

  • To what extent do the SDGs influence (international) business conduct?
  • How can MNEs support and promote poverty alleviation?
  • What is the role of MNEs in promoting gender equality, particularly in developing countries?
  • How can the pursuit of sustainable supply chains in MNEs contribute to the SDGs?
  • What are the characteristics of successful public private partnerships in support of the SDGs?
  • How could the SDGs affect MNEs’ value chains?
  • What is the link between MNEs’ corporate social responsibility activities and the SDGs?
  • What are the governance implications for MNEs if they choose to commit to the SDGs?
  • Which characteristics or contexts make MNEs more likely to actively contribute to the SDGs?

The theme of the special issue is dependent on the number of initial submissions received and the topics they address. 

  • Length of contributions: Between 2500-5000 words.
  • Submission deadline: February 28, 2017.

Please send questions regarding this special issue and submissions to either:
John Dilyard jdilyard@sfc.edu, or
Caroline Witte witte@ese.eur.nl

Monday, September 26, 2016

Call for papers. Special issues. How Does a Multinational Company’s Home Country Matter?

Journal of World Business

A Special Issue on


How Does a Multinational Company’s Home Country Matter?

Submissions open January 1-31, 2017


Special Issue Editors:
  • Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Northeastern University
  • Yadong Luo, University of Miami
  • Ravi Ramamurti, Northeastern University
Supervising Editor:

  • Siah Hwee Ang, Victoria University of Wellington

Objective of the Special Issue:

“The multinationalizing trend (is) widely recognized as similar in nature irrespective of the nationality of the parent company” – Raymond Vernon (quoted in Wilkins 1986: 202)
Vernon’s quote above presents an interesting hypothesis that is worthy of deeper examination. Does the home country of a multinational company (MNC) not matter much, as he asserts, or does it, and if so how? That is the main question explored in this special issue of the Journal of World Business.
The rise of new multinationals from emerging markets serves as a valuable natural experiment for probing the impact of a firm’s home country on its international strategy and behavior (Ramamurti, 2009). By 2015, emerging market multinational companies (EMNCs) accounted for one-quarter of world outward foreign direct investment (FDI) flows and one-fifth of the largest firms in the Fortune Global 2000. This growth led to a surge in academic interest in these firms, including special issues and volumes dedicated to their analysis (e.g. Aulakh, 2007; Cuervo-Cazurra, 2012; Cuervo-Cazurra & Ramamurti, 2014; Gammeltoft, Barnard & Madhok, 2010; Luo & Tung, 2007; Ramamurti & Singh, 2009; Williamson et al., 2013). However, there has also been a growing debate on the value of studying them as a distinct type of MNC (see Aharoni, 2014; Cuervo-Cazurra, 2012; Dunning, Kim & Park, 2008; Godley, 2014; Ramamurti, 2012; Rugman, 2010). Part of the debate and associated confusion emerges from the flawed comparison that some of the analyses make, particularly in disentangling the impact of a multinational’s home country from that of other variables. Some unique features of these firms may be not so much associated with their home country but rather with their industry of operation, stage of internationalization, ownership structure, and international experience (Ramamurti, 2012). An appropriate comparison of EMNCs with firms from other countries, such as advanced country multinational companies (AMNCs), may reveal which features of EMNCs are truly unique because of the country they come from and which are common to all MNCs regardless of their home country.
Many of the current MNC theories have paid limited attention to an MNC’s home country. Location has received relatively less attention than other firm characteristics (Dunning, 1998). Even those studies that tackle location explicitly have tended to focus on how characteristics of the host country affect the expansion of foreign firms, such as the host country’s level of development, its institutional and political system, or its economic size and degree of economic openness (e.g., Barkema, Bell & Penning, 1996; Chung & Beamish, 2005; Delios & Henisz, 2003; Meyer et al., 2013). Other studies have examined how the “distance” between the home and host country affects the international expansion of companies (e.g., Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; Ghemawat, 2001; Luo & Shenkar, 2011). More recently, a few studies have started paying attention to the impact of home country characteristics on a firm’s innovations and foreign expansion (e.g., Cuervo-Cazurra, 2006; Cuervo-Cazurra & Genc, 2008; del Sol & Kogan, 2007; Garcia-Canal & Guillen, 2008; Govindarajan & Ramamurti, 2011; Holburn & Zelner, 2010; Hoskisson et al., 2013; Luo & Wang, 2012).
In this special issue we propose to go beyond these studies and expand theories and models of the multinational by explaining how the home country affects the internationalization of the firm. This includes not only analyses of EMNCs, but also studies of AMNCs as well as comparisons of the behavior of EMNCs and AMNCs. Studies of EMNCs are a natural laboratory for extending existing models of the multinational because these have been built implicitly on the experience of AMNCs. Hence, studies that focus on EMNCs can provide new insights because their variation in home country characteristics and lower levels of economic, social, and political development facilitate the identification of mechanisms and a comparison of differences with current models. Moreover, home country tends to be more important to EMNCs than to incumbent AMNCs, providing another base for understanding how the home country affects internationalization. Studies of AMNCs can provide useful insights as long as they focus on advancing our theoretical understanding of the role of home country on internationalization. Comparative studies of companies from multiple home countries are particularly welcome if they tease out the role of the home country on internationalization. Single-country studies that pay particular attention to the mechanisms by which the home country affects a firm’s internationalization are also welcome. We welcome papers using diverse methodologies, including theoretical essays, large-sample analyses, and qualitative studies, as long as they provide a clear and detailed explanation of theoretical mechanisms and a strong theoretical contribution.
The objective of the special issue is to develop a better understanding of the theoretical mechanisms that explain how the home country influences the internationalization of the firm. The following topics are meant to illustrate the range of submissions rather than limit the ideas; authors are welcome to contact the guest editors to discuss the appropriateness of other topics related to theme of this Special Issue:



  • 1. How do companies coming from countries at different levels of economic or political development differ in their global strategies? How do early globalizers from emerging countries differ from late globalizers as their home country conditions have changed quickly over time? How does the change in the home country (economic growth, pro-market reforms, pro-market reversals, political change, etc.) affect the global expansion of firms?
  • 2. How do the home country and its relationships with particular host countries affect the international expansion of firms? How do changes in relationships among home and host countries (economic integration, political conflict, increased immigration, etc.) alter firm internationalization? 
  • 3. How does the level of development of the country affect the innovativeness and types of innovations that firms create and use in their global expansion? How do innovations for the base of the pyramid in the home country become global innovations? What adaptations are made to these to use abroad and how are they transferred?
  • 4. What can one learn from EMNCs about the process by which firms become multinationals? How does this process vary across different home countries, and how does it compare with the process by which earlier generations of MNCs emerged out of Japan, South Korea, the United States, or Western Europe?
  • 5. How do firms develop resources and capabilities to deal with the particular economic, geographic, political and social conditions of their home countries and use these abroad? How are these resources and capabilities transferred and adapted to other countries? How do EMNCs adapt and modify their strategies developed in the home country to address differing conditions of countries that are more or less developed than their home country?
  • 6. What is the role of the government in the international expansion of firms? Under what conditions does it facilitate internationalization? Under which conditions does it hinder it? How do state-owned firms differ from private firms when it comes to internationalization? How do these patterns vary across countries?
  • 7. How do EMNCs establish home-host country technological, organizational and operational links? How do they differ from AMNCs in organizing and managing such links? What are some effective mechanisms through which EMNCs orchestrate home-host country links? How do they integrate their acquired foreign strategic assets with their home base operations, and then use this stronger home base to reverberate to and further nurture international operations?

Submission Process:

Between January 1 and 31, 2017, authors should submit their manuscripts online via the Journal of World Business submission system: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-world-business. To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘SI: MNC Home Country’ when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process.
Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Journal of World Business Guide for Authors available at https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-world-business/1090-9516/guide-for-authors. All submitted manuscripts will be subject to the Journal of World Business’s double blind review process.
We will organize a workshop designed to facilitate the development of papers that will be held at Northeastern University in June of 2017. The workshop will be sponsored by the Center for Emerging Markets at Northeastern University and the Center for International Business Education and Research at the University of Miami. Authors of manuscripts that have progressed through the revision process will be invited to it. Presentation at the workshop is neither a requirement for nor a promise of final acceptance of the paper in the Special Issue.
Questions about the Special Issue may be directed to the guest editors: Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Northeastern University (a.cuervocazurra@neu.edu); Yadong Luo, University of Miami (yadong@miami.edu); Ravi Ramamurti, Northeastern University (r.ramamurti@neu.edu) and JWB Supervising Editor Siah Hwee Ang, Victoria University of Wellington (SiahHwee.Ang@vuw.ac.nz).

References:

Aharoni, Y. (2014). Theoretical debates on multinationals from emerging economies. In A. Cuervo-Cazurra & R. Ramamurti (Eds.), Understanding multinationals from emerging markets (pp. 15-30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Aulakh, P. S. (2007). Emerging multinationals from developing economies: motivations, paths, and performance. Journal of International Management, 13, 338-355.

Barkema, H. G., Bell, J., & Pennings, J. M. (1996). Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 151-166.

Chung, C. C., & Beamish, P. W. (2005). The impact of institutional reforms on characteristics and survival of foreign subsidiaries in emerging economies. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 35-62.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Genc, M. (2008). Transforming disadvantages into advantages: Developing country MNEs in the least developed countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 957-979

Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2006). Who cares about corruption? Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 803-822.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2012). How the analysis of developing country multinational companies helps advance theory: Solving the Goldilocks debate. Global Strategy Journal, 2, 153-167.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Ramamurti, R. (2014). Understanding multinationals from emerging markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

del Sol, P., & Kogan, J. (2007). Regional competitive advantage based on pioneering economic reforms: The case of Chilean FDI. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 901-927.

Delios, A., & Henisz, W. J. (2003). Political hazards, experience and sequential entry strategies: The international expansion of Japanese firms, 1980-1998. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1153-64.

Dunning, J. H. (1998). Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 45-66.

Dunning, J.H., Kim, C., & Park, D. (2008). Old wine in new bottles: a comparison of emerging-market TNCs today and developed-country TNCs thirty years ago. In K. Sauvant (Ed.), The Rise of Transnational Corporations from Emerging Markets: Threat or Opportunity? (pp. 158-180). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Gammeltoft, P., Barnard, H., & Madhok, A. (2010). Emerging multinationals, emerging theory: macro- and micro-level perspectives. Journal of International Management, 16, 95-101.

Garcia-Canal, E., & Guillen, M. F. (2008). Risk and the strategy of foreign location choice in regulated industries. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1097-1115

Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters. Harvard Business Review, 79 (8), 137-147.

Godley, A. (2014). What does history add to EMNC research? In A. Cuervo-Cazurra & R. Ramamurti (Eds.), Understanding multinationals from emerging markets (pp. 31-49). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Govindarajan, V., & Ramamurti, R. (2011). Reverse innovation, emerging markets, and global strategy. Global Strategy Journal, 1, 191-205.

Holburn, G. L. F., & Zelner, B. A. (2010). Political capabilities, policy risk and international investment strategy: Evidence from the global electric power industry. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1290-1315.

Hoskisson, R., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I. & Peng, M. W. (2013). Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1295-1321.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, 23-32.

Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. (2007). International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 481-498.

Luo, Y. & Shenkar, O. (2011). Toward a perspective of cultural friction in international business. Journal of International Management, 17, 1-14.

Luo, Y., & Wang, S. L. (2012). Foreign direct investment strategies by developing country multinationals: A diagnostic model for home country effects. Global Strategy Journal, 2, 244-261.

Meyer, K., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S., & Peng, M. W. (2009). Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 61-80.

Ramamurti, R. (2009). What have we learned about emerging market multinationals? In R. Ramamurti & J. V. Singh (Eds.) Emerging multinationals in emerging markets (pp. 399-426). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ramamurti, R. (2012). What is really different about emerging market multinationals? Global Strategy Journal, 2, 41-47.

Ramamurti, R., & Singh, J. V. (Eds.). (2009). Emerging multinationals from emerging markets. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rugman, A.M. (2010). Do we need a new theory to explain emerging market MNEs? In K. P. Sauvant, W. A. Maschek & G. A. McAllister (Eds.), Foreign direct investments from emerging markets: The challenges ahead. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sauvant, K. P. (Ed.). (2008). The rise of transnational corporations from emerging markets: Threat or opportunity? Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Wilkins, M. (1986). Japanese multinational enterprises before 1914. Business History Review, 60, 199-232.

Williamson, P., Ramamurti, R., Fleury, A., & Fleury, M. T. (Eds.). (2013). Competitive advantages of emerging country multinationals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

CfP. Global Value Chains, International Trade, and Markets: The Role of Emerging Economies


Special issue call for papers from International Journal of Emerging Markets

Visit: http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/call_for_papers.htm?id=6656

Global Value Chains, International Trade, and Markets: The Role of Emerging Economies
Special issue Call for Papers for the International Journal of Emerging Markets (IJoEM)


Global supply chains are continually evolving and transforming the way, emerging world economies do business with their developed counterparts. Developing nations are joining forces with developed nations through these rapidly transforming global value chains (GVCs) without investing in building their own; thus saving time, money and gaining access to technological innovations. Today, developing countries are exerting greater influence globally, economically and politically, given the power of GVCs. Through international organizations, such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), GVCs lead the way for shaping international trade, governance, production, employment, growth, development and competitiveness. Global economy is entering a "major inflection point", whereby GVCs are becoming increasingly predominant in both emerging and industrialized countries, and emerging economies have become a major engine of growth for global businesses and international trade.

In this special issue of the IJoEM, we invite submissions focused on supply chains as value chains in emerging (versus developed) economies, international trade, and interrelationships amongst logistics, supply chain management and global trade. We welcome submissions that offer important conceptual and empirical insights into the nature and processes of value chains, GVCs, GVC approaches and frameworks in different world economies, channel development and management, geographical collaborations, and global supply (value) chains. Of interest are papers that examine the impact of cross-cultural issues, characteristics, and challenges with regard to GVCs; institutional, political and regulatory factors on supply chain management issues; and the effects of institutional changes on IB discipline and supply chain processes with regard to emerging world economies.

Potential Topics of Interest (among others)
We welcome papers within the broadly defined subject theme area from all the major disciplines in business and management studies, including: strategy, international business, organizational behavior and cross-cultural management, marketing, operations and decision sciences, finance and accounting, international trade and business economics. Potential topics include, but are not limited to:
• Global supply (value) chains in developed vs emerging markets
• The role of institutions in promoting or constraining GVCs in emerging markets
• Factors impacting the geographic clustering of internationalization efforts for GVCs worldwide (developed as well as emerging economies)
• The impact of technology, innovation, institutions, industrialization, internationalization and governance on GVCs with regard to developing and developed economies
• The effect of internationalization on GVCs within a company, country or geographic region
• Cross-cultural collaboration and managerial mindset needed in GVC efforts
• Theoretical and Empirical contributions to the field of GVCs, institutions, international trade, and emerging markets

Deadlines, Submission Guidelines and Editors' Information
The special issue will feature the best papers from the Academy of International Business Southeast (AIB-SE) chapter meeting to be held in November 2016 (2016 AIB-SE Conference CFP: http://www.aibse.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-CfP-AIBSE-April-.pdf and Conference Submission System: http://meetings.aib.msu.edu/us-se/2016/) as well as submissions in response to the general call for papers. Based on editorial review, top rated papers will be invited to go through additional peer review to be considered for publication. Manuscripts for the special issue should be submitted through the IJoEM website: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijoem.

The deadline for submissions is February 15, 2017.
For general submission guidelines, see: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=ijoem
For additional information on the 2016 AIB-SE Conference, see: http://www.aibse.org/2016-annual-conference



Dr. Anshu Arora (Special Issue Editor)
Associate Professor - Marketing
Director of Global Logistics & International
Business Education and Research Center
Savannah State University, Georgia, USA
aroraa@savannahstate.edu
Phone: (912) 358-3387


Dr. Nicole Hartley (Special Issue Editor)
Lecturer - Marketing
University of Queensland Business School
University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia
n.hartley@business.uq.edu.au
Phone: +61 7 3346 8022